Rutherford Exposed: The Story of Berta and Bonnie

by Farkel 747 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  JWdaughter

  I'm only up to page 12 on this thread and as I have a good imagination and some sense of history, here are my current speculations that likely have no basis in fact, but would make for a good soap opera. The parents of Bonnie and Joseph are indeed the President and Bonnie Boyd(let's say). Their reputed parents were married at a time when both parents would be quite fertile and yet their children were not 'born' until 9 years into their marriage, when the reputed mom was 25, after having been married since the age of 16 to a much older man who is not evidenced to have other living children. The judge and HIS Bonnie did not need to hide a pregnancy for 9 months-they spent much of the year in San Diego and abroad. It would be easy to keep her out of sight in any case for a few months. As to the names, that is a little bit of ego, perhaps, but Bonnie was not a wildly popular name for a baby girl in 1930-#66 on the list I found. So, after 9 years of marriage and relative obscurity in a small texas town, this fine upstanding young couple is given the privilege of running Beth Sarim. Hmmm. The daughter and son are both made public, the daughter is called a princess.These are the children of the servants of Beth Sarim. I have never heard of Rutherford being nice to small children and puppies, has anyone here done so? A kind word? PULEEEZE. I imagine him flicking children away from him like so much lint on his suit, but I have a rather negative impression of Rutherford taken over the last 35 years of reading his words, and reading things written about him.

  The one thing no one has really mentioned was the Pappy thing in this context-for all the fuss and furor of the evils of the Roman Catholic Church, and actual lessons that I remember about not calling any one "father", the word pope is actually a derivative of Papa, or father, literally a child's word for daddy. The ancient way to say, perhaps, Pappy. I think Rutherford had his own megalomaniac inclinations and i DON'T think he was subtle about them.

  To be fair, all this (save the pappy bit) is purely speculative and perhaps unkind to the real Bonnie and Joseph who probably, if they had any sense, left the org. the first chance they could.
• 

  Heaven

  Rutherford was an ass....he even said so himself.

  It makes me sad to think that my parents and some of my family were/are aligned with this organization that has these asses in it.
• 

  JWdaughter

  I am now at top of page 18 and I hope that NONE of you ever decide to stalk me. You people are scary.
• 

  Leolaia

  Black Sheep...According to Wikipedia, the Pottenger who conducted the cat experiments was the son of the founder of the Sanatorium. The cat studies started in the 1930s.

  Just a question to Leo, is it possible by the passenger records to see in which part of the boat, Rutherford had his cabin. Was he in first, second, third or 'Tourist' class?

  chasson....Yes, of course he travelled in first class. When the class was indicated in the U.S. Department of Labor Immigration Service forms, it was first:

  

  Bonnie Boyd (Heath), Bill Heath, Berta Peale, Malcolm Rutherford, and Pauline Rutherford are also listed in first class as well.

  My father was a bodyguard to Rutherford and Knorr. Several brothers would spy on Rutherford having sex with a woman at Bethel. I don't know what sexual activity was involved.

  Band on the Run...Interesting. There are other stories I have heard from credible people, but I am not going to relate them until certain details can be clarified or confirmed.

  In law and ethics in general, the appearance of impropriety is as bad as impropriety itself. Even if Rutherford were innocent (which I doubt), he had no business not ordering his personal life better to avoid such an impression.

  And curious enough, Rutherford did discuss the very issue of "the apperance of impropriety" in two articles in the Watchtower (15 November 1932, pp. 343-344; 1 December 1935, p. 362). In the first article he drew attention to the biblical example of Ruth and Boaz (Ruth 3:7-8), in which Ruth laid down to sleep next to an already-sleeping Boaz. Rutherford noted that Ruth simply did "what the Lord would have her do" and "there is not one word in the divine record to indicate that there was any sensual or improper desire on the part of Ruth in taking this step as she did". The second example concerned Samson staying the night at the house of a prostitute (Judges 16:1-3). Rutherford opined that "the fact that Samson is not reproved in his conduct shows that he was at the house of the harlot for a legitimate purpose and in harmony with God's will". And acknowledging the appearance of impropriety, Rutherford added: "Regardless of what the argument may be, and regardless of how human creatures pretend to be shocked at the fact of Samson's spending a night in the house of a harlot, he was there at Jehovah's direction and therefore all presumptions must be indulged in his favor". One may thus expect a similar argument with respect to Rutherford — he was engaged in directing the Lord's work and if there ever was an appearance of impropriety, he should be given the benefit of the doubt. And even if one gives in to sexual desires, the sin was excusable. Rutherford pointed to the example of David, who was appointed by Jehovah to lead the earthly organization in his day: "Yielding to the inherited or acquired weaknesses of the flesh is not the sin unto death, and yet the Devil had led everybody to believe that lying, stealing, swearing, committing adultery, getting drunk or losing one's temper, or any other of the long list of fleshly weaknesses, constitutes sin unto death. But, on the contrary, all these things are forgivable. This explains why David could be called a man after God's own heart. His heart was loyal, but his flesh was weak" (1 September 1929 Watchtower, p. 271).

  In my career I have traveled with women that I worked with. Sometimes more than one at a time, sometimes there were other men also. I always made certain that there could be no question of impropriety. I always thought that this was important. For a person in the Judge's position to live in such a way that there is a constant question of impropriety says that either he could care less about other people's feelings, or there was impropriety and he wasn't good at hiding it or didn't care to hide it.

  lifeisgood....I think the statements from the Watchtower are quite revealing about his attitude about this.
• 

  Leolaia

  Here is a new little tidbit (Los Angeles Times, 1/13/1942, p. 6):

  

  1) This states that Mary Rutherford moved to Monrovia around 1921, which comes quite close to the date the Monrovia house was built (1922) according to Zillow. But this account construes Mary as moving straight from Missouri to Monrovia, which is contradicted by the 1920 census which has Mary then living at 128 N. Eastlake Avenue, Los Angeles, California. And we know that Joseph Rutherford was already living in Los Angeles circa 1915, where he practiced law prior to the death of Pastor Russell. And the WWI Draft Card for Malcolm Cameron Rutherford shows that he was already living at 128 N. Eastlake Avenue, Los Angeles, California on 6/15/1917. So this article likely has some inaccuracy here. Perhaps the move West to California was due to her health issue (in those days, the move to California was often due to health reasons) but the move to Monrovia in ca. 1922 was a separate event.

  2) The information that Mary Rutherford had been "given by physicians a single year to live" is new. She either recovered or the prognosis was unjustified, but it is interesting that for a time, things looked very dire for her. We also don't know the nature of her illness. Did she have a respiratory illness as well, and the move to be near the Sanatorium was for her health instead? Was her husband there for her during that difficult time, whenever it was she had the illness?

  3) Did this biographical sketch ever appear? It is interesting that she had knowledge that it was being prepared, suggesting that she was in contact with Bethel in some way.

  4) And most interesting is her stated "lifetime policy of 'no interviews' ". Most definitely, she wanted to be left alone and have her privacy.
• 

  james_woods

  4) And most interesting is her stated "lifetime policy of 'no interviews' ". Most definitely, she wanted to be left alone and have her privacy.

  Could it possibly be that the WTBTS was paying for her upkeep and a condition of it was to keep silent about the Judge and the society?
• 

  Quendi

  I have not read this entire thread, only the first page and then the last three, but what I have read is mindshaking. The WTS had better hope this cat never gets out of the bag and roams wild among the rank and file! I will go back and read the intermediate pages to get a complete picture later but I can't help contrasting this information with the hagiography of Rutherford that one will find in the 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses. I remember reading that when it first appeared and honestly believing that Rutherford fit the description WTS literature gave of him being a brave leader who resisted with all his strength 'Christendom's efforts to destroy God's people'. Some leader! He was an abusive alcoholic who couldn't be bothered to go door-to-door while he required everyone else to do so.

  I want to thank all who have been a part of this mammoth research effort. I am so glad that you have given of your time and talents to this work, and all the more so with the annoucement that the WTS will start publishing an "Archives" feature in The Watchtower which will purportedly lift the curtain on the history of this cult as well as publish excerpts from some of its old publications. I don't doubt that effort will be a whitewash and fall far short of its premise and promise. My friends, keep up the good work!

  Quendi
• 

  St George of England

  The daughter and son are both made public, the daughter is called a princess.These are the children of the servants of Beth Sarim

  Is that correct? I was always under the impression they lived in Beth Shan.

  George
• 

  Leolaia

  james woods....That is certainly a possibility. Or the terms of the informal separation were worked out privately. If Mary did have things to say, Rutherford still had a publishing empire at his disposal, and he did not hestitate in castigating and libelling his enemies (as the courts affirmed in the case of Olin Moyle). Rutherford himself demonized Maria Russell in his 1915 Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens (comparing her to John Wesley's wife as betraying her husband and persecuting him, accusing her of slander, etc.). That itself may have been a disincentive against talking publically about her husband if indeed there was anything to talk about.

  Quendi....To get a quick overview of things, you can read this post and then this summary of most of what we know.

  St George.....Beth Shan was not built until 1939. The Balkos lived at Beth Sarim since 1929 (see the 1930 census); I don't know of the living arrangements after 1939.

  Okay, here is something else new. A 1930 photo of Susette Heath:

  
• 

  exwhyzee

  marked